disposition or carriage of the soul? I am confident, if there was less demand for animal food the quality would be very much better. Animals would not be subject to false and unhealthy generation, and false and hasty methods of growth. They would come up more in keeping with the laws of their nature, and come to us with more healthy and better qualities. As for the hog, if man would not domesticate him, he could not propagate his species. He would become extinct just like the lion, leopard, and hyena, under the march of civilization. As the blessings of civilized life reach us, you notice the carnivorous or flesh-eating animals become extinct. So it seems to me that with the developments of civilization there ought to be such moral refinements in human beings that they would grow away from their carnivorous tendencies, and eat such food as tends to develop the mental and moral faculties, and not the animal propensities. Among animals you find that those that live on the flesh of other animals are the most vicious and destructive, such as the lion, leopard, and hyena. Those animals that live on the grains and the higher order of foods are the best, most beautiful, and most useful, such as the horse and cow. If this law obtains among animals, why not among men? Beyond a doubt it does. If you want proof of this, study the character and lives of those who live largely on animal food, and you will find them very animal-like in all their relations—restive, impatient, passionate, ugly in their ways, fiery in their disposition, easily provoked, readily put out of humor. And if you could look into their private lives you would find all their baser qualities having the fullest sway, stopping, it may be, inside the fence of human laws and customs, but seldom considering the claims of a higher and divine law. I charge, then, very much of our household misery, domestic woe, and connubial wretchedness, to unrestrained lust begotten in the body by the inordinate use of animal food.